1 / 17

Burning Simulation and Life-Cycle Assessment of Fusion Reactors

Burning Simulation and Life-Cycle Assessment of Fusion Reactors. Kozo YAMAZAKI Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan. (with the help of T. Oishi, K. Mori, Y. Hori and K. Ban). OUTLINE. Introduction 2. Burning Simulation using “TOTAL” (Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage)

felton
Download Presentation

Burning Simulation and Life-Cycle Assessment of Fusion Reactors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Burning Simulation and Life-Cycle Assessment of Fusion Reactors Kozo YAMAZAKI Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan (with the help of T. Oishi, K. Mori, Y. Hori and K. Ban)

  2. OUTLINE • Introduction • 2. Burning Simulation using “TOTAL” • (Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage) • ITB, D/T ratio, Impurity • 3. Life-Cycle Assessment using “PEC” • (Plasma, Engineering and Cost) • Cost, CO2, Energy Payback etc. • 4. Summary

  3. ＴＯＴＡＬ PEC Physics, Engineering, Cost Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage 1. Introduction Searching for Attractive Fusion Reactor In our small Laboratory Small Experiment Burning Simulation Reactor Assessment TOKASTAR

  4. 2. Burning Plasma Simulation: “TOTAL” Code History Start (~1980) Tokamak (2nd stability)   Nuclear Fusion Vol.25 (1985) 1543. Helical Analysis Nuclear Fusion Vol.32 (1992) 633. Burning Simulation (Tokamak & Helical) Nuclear Fusion Vol.49 (2009) 055017. Based on JT-60U ITB operation and LHD e-ITBdata.

  5. Core Plasma EquilibriumTokamak: :2DAPOLLO Helical: 3DVMEC, DESCUR, NEWBOZ TransportTokamak：　TRANS、 GLF23、NCLASS Helical：　HTRANS,GIOTA StabilityNTM,Sawtooth, Ballooning mode Edge transport H-modeedge transport ＴＯＴＡＬ Impurity IMPDYN (rate equation) Tunsgtein ADPAC　（various cross-section） Toroidal Transport AnalysisLinkage Fueling NGS (neutral gas shielding) model mass relocation model NBI HFREYA, FIFPC PuffingAURORA Divertor density control, two-point divertor Main Feature of “TOTAL” is to perform both Tokamak and Helical Analyses World Integrated Modeling TOTAL-T,-H(J) TOPICS(J) TASK(J) CRONOS(EU) TRANSP(US) ASTRA(RU)

  6. Present Research Issues Using “TOTAL” Code • Advance Reactor Operation Scenario • with ITB assisted by Pellet Injection • D/T fuel ratio adjustment for burn control • High-Z impurity(Tungsten) Effect • and Diverter Analysis • NTM Effects on Burning Properties • BS Current Fraction in ST reactor • Stable against Ballooning Mode

  7. Time evolution of reversed-shear-mode operation with continuous HFS pellet injection 1GWe TokamakReactor TR-1

  8. 3. System Code Assessment: “PEC” Code History Ignition TokamakDesign (~1980,PPPL) Helical Design Assessment IAEA-Montreal (1996) Helical & Tokamak Assessment IAEA-Lyon (2002) Cost/CO2/EPR Analysis in MFE reactors IAEA-Geneva (2008) Cost/CO2/EPR Analysis in MFE & IFE reactors IAEA-Daejeon (2010)

  9. PEC Physics, Engineering, Cost Main Feature is Comparative Assessment of Various Reactors IFE MFE Thanks to US data (ARIES Group) Driver Energy (MJ) Driver Efficiency (%) Target Electric Output (MWe) Plasma beta value β Ignition margin Target Electric Output (MWe) input input Fuel Mass (g) Fusion Energy (MJ) Assumption of ①Thickness of Blanket (m) ②Plasma major radius Rp(m) Assumption of Repetition Ratio frep(Hz) Plasma Parameters Power Balance Power Balance Check Ptarget, tblanket, igm Check Ptarget Final Radial Build Final Radial Build output output Cost & CO2 emission amounts Cost & CO2 emission amounts

  10. (Supplementary Information) International Comparisons of Present Commercial COE US$/kWh Home Industry Japan USA UK Germany France Italy Korea Home Industry Data from OECD/IAE Energy Prices and Taxes (2009)

  11. Plasma Shield SC or NC Coil SC Coil Plasma Plasma SC Coil Shield Shield Gap Gap Gap Blanket Blanket Blanket R First Wall m B First Wall First Wall R max m R 0 B B B 0 max R R max 0 m B B 0 0 R 0 Multiple Approaches Have Similar COE TR ST IR HR Shield Blanket Reflector Laser First Wall Tokamak Reactor 9.8¢/kWh Spherical Torus 10.4¢/kWh Helical Reactor 11.1¢/kWh Inertial Reactor 10.7¢/kWh 1¢~1\ 1GWe Plant

  12. Capital Cost~ P0.5 C.O.E. ~ P-0.5 CO2 Rate ~ P-0.3 Power Dependence on COE, CO2 rate MFE

  13. Power Dependence of IFE is similar to that of MFE IFE

  14. New Scaling Laws are derived

  15. Comparisons with Other Power Plants • Hondo et al., Socio-economic • Research Center (2000) 1¢~1\

  16. CO2 Tax combines Cost and CO2 CCS-Coal 1US¢~1\ 1US$~100\

  17. ４. Summary ●　Comparative system studies have been done for several magnetic fusion energy (MFE) reactors and inertial fusion energy (IFE) reactor. ●　We clarified new scaling formulas for cost of electricity (COE) and GHG emission rate with respect to key design parameters. ●　The comparisons with other conventional electric power generation systems are carried out taking care of the GHG taxes and the CCS (carbon dioxide capture and storage) system to fossil power generators.

More Related